I find the words "This is a billion-dollar industry. This is about their self-interest." to be interesting. Could he be inviting, subtly, the game industries to send a few lobbyists his way? With some nice "campaign contributions" in their briefcases to make this go away?
The open corruption within the politics of the USA raises this as a strong possibility in my mind.
And extradition can only be merited if the charges being pressed would be a criminal offense if they had occurred in New Zealand. Evidence is absolutely required by the defense to defend that it is not.
The other take-away point from Article IV is:
...if the evidence be found sufficient, according to the laws of the place where the person sought shall be found, either to justify his committal for trial if the offense of which he is accused had been committed in that place...
Which as I read it means that the charge that extradition is being sought after also must be a crime in the country where they are. If that is the case, then the evidence must be seen as it will needed to prove if Kim Dotcom has committed a criminal offense under New Zealand law, and not just a crime under US law.
Hmm, so let's see...
El-P, record label founder: Such a great guy
Amanda Palmer, Independent artist: Flash in the pan
Dan Bull, Independent artist: OMG! Filthy pirate! How dare he work around the artificial barriers to entry!
Now, nothing against El-P, he seems to understand and accept how the world now works. That he was willing to come here and discuss it speaks volumes for him. What I want to know is why can't the RIAA shills, and their bought and paid for "artists", who post here under the name AC show the same level of understanding?
The current insanity of the ownership mentality has gone too far! How long until you are charged for merely looking at a painting, under the reasoning that you are making a mental copy. How long until you are charged for simply breathing because a ownership troll owns a plantation and some of "their" oxygen is in the air you are breathing. This needs to end, NOW!
A revolution is way overdue, the government must be reminded that THEY ARE THERE TO SERVE OUR INTERESTS, not the interests of a chosen few. As for the content industries...they need to be reminded that We.Don't.Need.Them, if anything, they need us.
I'm going to reply to a couple of postings here:
First, everyone seems to be thinking that Kim Dotcom will be tried in the USA, what you seem to miss is that the NZ court has to OK the extradition, no OK, no extradition...and the criteria for extradition is very high.
Second, can we please make it legal to shoot anyone who uses the phrase "Intellectual Property" seriously! There are patents, copyrights and trade secrets, and none of them are actual properties. If you want copyright you don't get patents or trade secrets, choose one.
One last thought, it should be mandatory that if you sue over a patent any court proceeding must be stayed pending PTO review, and the PTO review is automatic. For each patent found invalid and rejected the plaintiff must pay the costs of the review.
I swear that there should be a special Hell waiting for the judges that opened the door for software patents.
I see them sitting there, hearing the most stupid software patents lawsuits forever. And then having the case referred back from the Infernal Court Of Appeal and having to listen to the same case...again...FOR THE REST OF ETERNITY!
Hmm, a few points that you may want to take into account:
1. ISP's are not distributing a thing, their customers may be, but they aren't
2. Labels are not paying the creators, refer to Kenny Rogers and other artists being cheated by the label
3. Google was built on providing search results, the ranking of said results determined by what people are actually selecting
If the Music industry wants to increase revenues:
start producing quality that people will pay for
start making it easier and more convenient for us to buy the music
stop treating your customers as thieves
stop treating the artists you rely on as serf's
I must admit to no small amount of confusion here. If I have paid my phone company for x amount of data traffic, and they have accepted my money, how can they have any say in how I use the data I have paid for? Is this some sort of uniquely American thing?
I have a mobile data plan with my phone company in New Zealand, and I can tether whatever I want to my phone with no issues or threats of extra charges, mainly because I HAVE PAID FOR IT. Why does the American public let the telco's do this without calling them to account?
I have seen comments about the "justice system" or the "misjustice system", but I think you are misinformed...America does not *have* a justice system, it has a legal system...there is no justice in it any more. Justice, in America, is now the domain of the lawyers and rich and powerful, you, as a mere peon, have no access to justice anymore. Let's take a hypothetical example, $rich_mega_corp has done something very wrong, you don't want to enrich a lawyer too much, so you take them to court, now you need to ask:
- Can you afford the initial trial?
- Can you afford the inevitable appeal, on appeal, on appeal?
- How far can you go before you are bankrupt?
If you are a normal person, the answers are: Barely, no and not far. An appeal against a court verdict should be a very, very serious move, not a business as usual step. If you appeal you are questioning the judge, jury and entire legal process, serious penalties should be levied against both the client and lawyer for a failed appeal where the law was correctly applied.
Until such a time, when appeals are serious, you will end up with the rich and powerful making endless appeals until their opponents cannot afford to continue.
Why someone who invents something to make the world a better place, pouring in time, effort and sheer creativity gets 17 years to recoup the cost they have paid. While another who makes a catchy song gets, effectively, forever. When did music or literature become vastly more important than inventions?
Which is the model the allofmp3 (remember them) used. The cost of a track was based on the MB size of the track, and you chose the kbs quality of the track and encoding, and hence the size.
My understanding is that they did remit royalties to the Russian collection agency, but the label's etc. never claimed it. My guess is that they were afraid to legitimise the business model and would be unable to impose artificial constraints. Also, the artists would rise or fall based solely on the merits of their music, and not by the promotion of the label.
To the labels, allofmp3 was evil incarnate and needed to be crushed at all costs, and it was.
Let's see, "flawed understanding of the law" and "historical facts are no one's property". Well, if their lawyers did not understand the historical FACTS part, then they deserve to be disbarred! My understanding of lawyers is that they serve 2 functions; provide sound legal advice to their clients, act as agents of the court. In this case the legal team involved failed on both counts. They failed to recognise that historical facts cannot be owned, and they made baseless legal threats that supposedly had the full weight of the courts behind them.
These lawyers should be disbarred at the very least.
"Picasso had a saying: 'Good artists copy, great artists steal.' We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas...I think part of what made the Macintosh great was that the people working on it were musicians, poets, artists, zoologists and historians who also happened to be the best computer scientists in the world."
Can I ask on behalf of the rest of the world, please go home.
Now, don't get me wrong, some of you seem quite nice. But, what we mainly see are your tourists, and your insane laws...and honestly, the tourists are nicer.
We don't really need your "Free Trade Agreements", we were doing quite well thank you. We don't need your SOPA or PIPA. We don't need your ACTA or TPP (you really need to stop infecting international treaties and so on with your brand of "Intellectual Property" madness).
In conclusion, please go home and put your own house in order, it really needs your attention.
The only way I could ever put the slightest iota of support to this, would be if the politicians, who advocate and vote for this, accept to have their entire web browsing history, Google searches and all, on a publicly accessible website. After all, if you have nothing to hide...
Oh, and the website would be real-time, and it would be for any Internet account under any of their family.
If they don't accept that, then what are they hiding?